time to take the finger off the ignition switch

[Scott Mayers]

Anselm begins with a stipulative definition of “God” as “a being than which no greater
being can be conceived.”

My argument against Anselm is very simple. Anselm would have to begin with :

I have never conceived of any idea that was false.

Every idea I have conceived of is true.

I conceive of a God, a being than which no greater can be conceived.

And so on.

The problem is in the assumption of the conceptual truth. It would be a correct premise only if Anselm could prove that every idea he has ever had is true or proven true in the long run. Only then could he claim his conception of God as a conceptual truth. If he has had ideas which have been proved to be false, there is no way he could identify which are true and which are false at the time of conception and later without proof.

Would you agree ?

Yes, the link I believe may have argued this too because this was another means to show his argument's problem. I defaulted to presume that even if his argument could be valid, it is not sound on the basis of his mere begging of definition to link his interpretation of a conception of the whole to the term, "God". That is, even if everything else 'was' true by his reasoning, it still could not be sound because it is a 'transference' to beg the definition to a label that has rhetorical and emotional connotations. ["Validity" is just the appropriate way to connect ideas to a conclusion; "Soundness" is to whether the premises and conclusion map to reality, since you can find an argument 'true' by form but not in substance.]

Ken here seems to be likely doing this, if I can read him correctly. You can create a definition and label it with anything arbitrarily as a symbol, just as we can name people arbitrarily. But the type of reasoning I'm talking of is like if one should name their child, "Idiot", and not think that such a label should be relatively appropriate in our culture, considering what the label means in our normal context. This is what many apologists do with the word, "God". It often sneaks into some other argument with less noticeable contrast to the example of naming a kid "Idiot". But the error is similar.

I also pointed out that it is common to all of us and a major part of what makes humor humorous. So I recognize that it is not as simple to assume one being irrational per se when they use this kind of reasoning. The subtle way it fools us all is at fault. Ken keeps using "I" here too which may be apart of this too. But we need better definitions. "Definitions" themselves, though, is just another part of reasoning that most do not agree to and would have to be addressed.

[Scott Mayers]

I HAD to give God a definition before we could even begin here. So I did that. I certainly was NOT going to assert that 'I' exist, therefore the meaning of 'I' must exist, that being 'God'. I probably have, at the moment, over 100,000 words to explain before I get even close to the conclusion. Explaining each and everyone of those words in order to prove what I say is going to be easy. The hard part is just trying to get past people's beliefs and assumptions, once that is done, and if people seriously want to change their wrong ways, then the rest is plain simple, easy, and quick.

Let "X" stand for "All things"
Let "Y" stand for "All things and more"
"X" exists
Therefore "Y" exists.

I do not follow here:

How could there be a "Y", "All things and more"? There is NO more of ALL things.

Although it looks like you caught onto this later in some way, my point is to show that the argument by the kind of mistake I'm referring to is to think that one can label any term, like "God", as though it were a variable, when in context to cultures everywhere, this term is a constant. The 'constant' understanding of "God" is the DEFAULT and though many believe in different specific beliefs about 'him'(?), many interpret this essence a perfectly 'true' and particular entity in reality.

You can't use generic terms, like "I" or "the all", and label these "God", because you are just selectively transferring those 'variable' terms ('variable' because "I", for instance acts like a box to which you place your own name in place of it of which there are many).

It DOES appear that you may be thinking in terms of a "Gnostic" type of "God", like what has become the mystic branch of religion that do not always interpret "God" to be specific. East Indian Hinduism and Buddhism are extended evolution of these and are NOT always considered "religious" by some. But often the means of these are to interpret "God" as some conscious state of enlightenment, such as Nirvana, intended to entice us to interpret WHAT "God" is. And 'when' we discover it, we somewhat 'become' it for experiencing it. Is this some form of what you are thinking?

The transference con here is that we generally use "Universe" to be "X" while the religious person uses "God" to be "Y". But the error is the "...and more" part to which they also have their extended meaning of "God" to mean something like, "that caring creator of all things who will reward or punish you in the end if you don't believe or behave in some specific way". So it is intended to trick some into believing that if the SYMBOL stands for more than one definition, the SYMBOL when used in fact DOES mean all different definitions at once.

Ah ok, you answered my last question here already. If I was to quickly attempt what you did above, knowing that it would not be sound or valid, then I would say something like:

Let us call "God" "ALL things".
Let "W" stand for "ALL physical things".
Let "X" stand for "ALL space in between ALL physical things".
Let "Y" stand for "ALL thoughts and emotions".
Let "Z" stand for "Self-awareness conscious of It Self, the Mind".
If "W" "X" "Y" and "Z" exists, then
only that is "ALL things", (sometimes referred to as "God").
Therefore, "God" exists.

If 'I' am not yet Self-aware, then
"Z" does not exist.
Therefore, NOT "ALL things" exist.

"Z" exists.
Therefore, "ALL things" exist.

Contrary to what a LOT of people have heard, think and/or believe or disbelieve 'I', God, did not create the Universe, the way it is NOW, at any other point other than NOW. I am thee Creator creating "W" "X" and "Y" exactly how I want them to be right HERE and NOW.

I can't be certain of what you are saying. But let me reflectively rephrase how I think this may be to me:

You are asserting that "God" (as 'Z' here) is an essence that includes "W", "X", "Y". You default to assume we all agree to "W" and "X" (I'm not sure how you defaulted "X") but argue since "Y" is true, such that "I am conscious" means that "thoughts and emotions are true" (and the collection of all that have them as, "ALL"), this is sufficient to accept "Z" as true. But you are then still interpreting this in the error I was pointing out, but just making unnecessarily more complex. I simply treated the "and more" to mean any extended meaning you apply to a definition.

For example, let's take two words that relate: "apartment" and "dwelling". If I said that "I live in an "apartment" and can prove it, by default extension of how this word is used, you could interpret me to be living in a larger 'dwelling' that includes other apartments. But we often use the word "apartment" to ALSO refer to the whole building, but since both are true by default, this is alright.

But if I am like a 'scientist' and want to discuss each place without respect to simply apartments, "dwelling" is more universal because this can include those living in houses or tents, etc. This would be neutral and lack implying some NARROW specific meaning.

Now, if you've only known any dwelling as necessarily being an "apartment", to you this word may be sufficient. But you can't appropriately use this word and expect the rest of the world to understand when or where you speak specifically about 'dwellings' in general or 'apartments in particular. You might be making some argument, for instance that "apartments", as with ALL "dwellings" to you, have the problem that the essence of the structure is not private enough. But this ignores that distinct houses exist should you think your use of "apartment" should be maintained when speaking of ALL dwellings.

This is what you also do with a term like "God" versus "Universe". If you beg that we accept "God" to mean what the rest of everyone uses the word, "Universe", this is just purposely picking a term based on some more limited meaning by how that word is traditionally and culturally used. The "extension" part is to how you treat "God" as one who only treats everyone as living in "apartments" by asking if everyone at least agrees to the meaning, "those that have some particular shelter to live in". You can't expect that since you personally define "God" to include properties that are most universal, that everyone should accept what you might have to say further down the road isn't intended to be transferable later on. That is, if you mean "Universe", but prefer labeling this "God", to those of us external to the religious interpretation of "God", find this as a rhetorical technique to be later applied as a con. Why not just use the neutral word, "Universe", since it IS more universal AND doesn't imply anything of its 'parts' whether that could contain a 'god' or not.

Note that this even occurs in language within science. I prefer the word, "Totality" over "Universe" since is more general to include the possibility of 'multiverses' AND to any possible things (like one's religious beliefs in places like 'Heaven and Hell') to be both MOST inclusive AND still not dismissing possible other things. It only opens the door for distraction.

The term, "God", has too much baggage. We can't use this and why it is best that you avoid it. But you could try to find a more inclusive term, like I use "totality" if you want to focus on something more specifically linked to those things that religion involves.

[Scott Mayers]

There is no denying the fact that belief in God probably kick-started the scientific thought process. Putting aside the superstitions, the philosophies that belief in God started, what is the meaning of life, purpose of life, etc, somehow seem to have lead to the development of science. We owe a lot to the belief in God. I will accept that. But just as you cannot keep your finger on the ignition button once the car has started, one cannot keep believing in God once the scientific process has started. The car is moving. Let your finger off the ignition button. It is harming the car. Now, let the process take care of itself.

Back on subject, in referring back to your original post above, while I agree, I think the reverse had likely been as equally true: that religion evolved as much FROM a 'scientific' or 'secular' condition. I have posted here somewhere about a theory I have on "Temples" and "Sacrifice" for instance as essential development stages that actually DO NOT originate from religion as most of us presume.

Temples, for instance, evolve as literal temporary meeting places intended as a secular type of structure meant to prove property claims between different tribes. At the time of their initial creations, agriculture was just beginning and was still temporal itself for tribes who would seasonally come back to plots of lands that they started to work. However, prior to official claims, this would have lead to problems when other tribes might opt to take another's harvest based on disputed claims. "Idols" were made as particular unique markers that a tribe would bury secretly in their land claims. Each tribe would do the same. But to officially 'prove' which tribe owned what, they needed the 'temple' to either have matching 'signatures' of the collective tribes with a latter priest representing each tribe used to officially prove which properties belonged to which tribes. A later evolution was to nominate one of those tribes, originally, 'democratically' among the tribes, to also police the temples and the communities that formed as civilization their became more settled. They became the 'kings' or Pharaohs who were only originally respected as negotiated 'Sheriffs' who also evolved in some places to overtake the original role of policing to include drawing together the various different tribes into some common belief system. Some would thus later become religious leaders as their power grew.

"Sacrifice", in a time when even official Temples were still not sufficient for judicious negotiations between land disputes, became a THE most rational means to prove confidence between tribes or individuals. They did it likely without essential religious reasons more often. For instance, the concept was not to sacrifice to gods but to each other. But, just as today, what IS or IS NOT sufficiently agreed to as 'sacrifice' would be in question. For instance, if Donald Trump came along and gave someone on the street a hundred dollar bill, although this would be 'kind', it isn't sufficient to prove Donald was a sincere person since he is not "sacrificing" relative to what he has. So when it came to making contracts between tribes (or Treaties), the only sincere way to assure each complied was to determine 'what' is actually a sincere sacrifice, then to sacrifice to each other in kind. AND, they also had to do it in a way that neither sacrifice represented a BENEFIT to the other as this makes only one side potentially acting to accept agreement FOR that benefit (like if you were a desperately poor and hungary person when Trump came along to give you a hundred-dollar bill, since the benefit you'd receive by it would force you to BE reflectively kind in word but not in heart.)

So to sacrifice in such a way that would emotionally assure the parties would comply requires perfect destruction of such sacrifices. If you sacrificed a cow when this represented the essential comfort of one tribe and it happened to be as valuable of the other, then two cows would be literally sacrificed, one from each tribe, in total destruction. If the other lacked a cow and all they had was a loved one, this too would have been a rational choice. No one would desire to kill one they loved. But this is precisely what makes it a 'sacrifice'. And so what appears as ritual of religious sacrifice that evolved into what we interpret as derived from some religion, actually had a sincere non-religious origin. No doubt this would inevitably arouse pain to each involved and so the emotional factors involved alone is sufficient to expect newly extended rituals involving praying to some 'god' (Nature) during these events. You don't even have to BE religious, to behave in heightened emotions in such events. And the conflict that arises in later times will always have some point where some will think the Temples are 'supposed' to be religious, not secular, places (like Jesus did with Jerusalem). They were disgusted with the nature of the temple to be the secular institute it actually was.

So, in light of this, sthitapragya, these are just two examples of where I think religion has evolved from secular origins. The origins became lost in people's minds, especially when newer ways evolved in civilization that lacked the SAME necessity for them. As such, ironically, many 'religions' evolved as relatively PROGRESSIVE functions intended to throw over the obsolete secular functions that have been conserved, often by force, where unnecessary.

[sthitapragya]

Back on subject, in referring back to your original post above, while I agree, I think the reverse had likely been as equally true: that religion evolved as much FROM a 'scientific' or 'secular' condition. I have posted here somewhere about a theory I have on "Temples" and "Sacrifice" for instance as essential development stages that actually DO NOT originate from religion as most of us presume.

Temples, for instance, evolve as literal temporary meeting places intended as a secular type of structure meant to prove property claims between different tribes. At the time of their initial creations, agriculture was just beginning and was still temporal itself for tribes who would seasonally come back to plots of lands that they started to work. However, prior to official claims, this would have lead to problems when other tribes might opt to take another's harvest based on disputed claims. "Idols" were made as particular unique markers that a tribe would bury secretly in their land claims. Each tribe would do the same. But to officially 'prove' which tribe owned what, they needed the 'temple' to either have matching 'signatures' of the collective tribes with a latter priest representing each tribe used to officially prove which properties belonged to which tribes. A later evolution was to nominate one of those tribes, originally, 'democratically' among the tribes, to also police the temples and the communities that formed as civilization their became more settled. They became the 'kings' or Pharaohs who were only originally respected as negotiated 'Sheriffs' who also evolved in some places to overtake the original role of policing to include drawing together the various different tribes into some common belief system. Some would thus later become religious leaders as their power grew.

"Sacrifice", in a time when even official Temples were still not sufficient for judicious negotiations between land disputes, became a THE most rational means to prove confidence between tribes or individuals. They did it likely without essential religious reasons more often. For instance, the concept was not to sacrifice to gods but to each other. But, just as today, what IS or IS NOT sufficiently agreed to as 'sacrifice' would be in question. For instance, if Donald Trump came along and gave someone on the street a hundred dollar bill, although this would be 'kind', it isn't sufficient to prove Donald was a sincere person since he is not "sacrificing" relative to what he has. So when it came to making contracts between tribes (or Treaties), the only sincere way to assure each complied was to determine 'what' is actually a sincere sacrifice, then to sacrifice to each other in kind. AND, they also had to do it in a way that neither sacrifice represented a BENEFIT to the other as this makes only one side potentially acting to accept agreement FOR that benefit (like if you were a desperately poor and hungary person when Trump came along to give you a hundred-dollar bill, since the benefit you'd receive by it would force you to BE reflectively kind in word but not in heart.)

So to sacrifice in such a way that would emotionally assure the parties would comply requires perfect destruction of such sacrifices. If you sacrificed a cow when this represented the essential comfort of one tribe and it happened to be as valuable of the other, then two cows would be literally sacrificed, one from each tribe, in total destruction. If the other lacked a cow and all they had was a loved one, this too would have been a rational choice. No one would desire to kill one they loved. But this is precisely what makes it a 'sacrifice'. And so what appears as ritual of religious sacrifice that evolved into what we interpret as derived from some religion, actually had a sincere non-religious origin. No doubt this would inevitably arouse pain to each involved and so the emotional factors involved alone is sufficient to expect newly extended rituals involving praying to some 'god' (Nature) during these events. You don't even have to BE religious, to behave in heightened emotions in such events. And the conflict that arises in later times will always have some point where some will think the Temples are 'supposed' to be religious, not secular, places (like Jesus did with Jerusalem). They were disgusted with the nature of the temple to be the secular institute it actually was.

So, in light of this, sthitapragya, these are just two examples of where I think religion has evolved from secular origins. The origins became lost in people's minds, especially when newer ways evolved in civilization that lacked the SAME necessity for them. As such, ironically, many 'religions' evolved as relatively PROGRESSIVE functions intended to throw over the obsolete secular functions that have been conserved, often by force, where unnecessary.

There is the argument that there is a 'god' gene which predisposes humans towards religion. It also seems that religion evolved around 50000 years ago after the evolution of language but predates agriculture which is around 10000 years old. So could it not be that temples were a later development in the history of religion? Even progression would suggest that the concept of powerful supernatural beings would be followed by rituals to appease them, followed by places to house them. Initially, it would be a way to explain natural phenomena which could not scientifically be explained though this practice still continues today, by attributing it to some supernatural being. In the beginning there would be a lot of supernatural beings and as society started getting more sophisticated with leaders, the concept of supernatural beings having a leader would follow logically.

I actually am of the belief that science probably never had anything to do with religion at all and developed independently and inevitably as man evolved. However, since I don't have any evidence and it is believed that concepts like who am I, what is the meaning of life etc. gave rise to science, I am letting it pass. But logically I cannot see how anyone following this line of thought would come up with a scientific concept or discovery.

[Scott Mayers]

There is the argument that there is a 'god' gene which predisposes humans towards religion. It also seems that religion evolved around 50000 years ago after the evolution of language but predates agriculture which is around 10000 years old. So could it not be that temples were a later development in the history of religion? Even progression would suggest that the concept of powerful supernatural beings would be followed by rituals to appease them, followed by places to house them. Initially, it would be a way to explain natural phenomena which could not scientifically be explained though this practice still continues today, by attributing it to some supernatural being. In the beginning there would be a lot of supernatural beings and as society started getting more sophisticated with leaders, the concept of supernatural beings having a leader would follow logically.

I actually am of the belief that science probably never had anything to do with religion at all and developed independently and inevitably as man evolved. However, since I don't have any evidence and it is believed that concepts like who am I, what is the meaning of life etc. gave rise to science, I am letting it pass. But logically I cannot see how anyone following this line of thought would come up with a scientific concept or discovery.

My 'theories' are appropriately "conjectures" to be precise. I don't think that we actually could directly prove what I'm saying 'is' true or not. But I think it is an error to assume the ancients had somehow been less tied to this world and more to another. In fact, they would have been MORE grounded to Earth originally as they were in 'fact'. The forms of 'animism' we interpret looking in retrospect are not any less irrational than seeing how from childhood on we like to play and pretend....that we initially interpret anything of other parts of nature as being tied to us more personally. This is also a property of ALL complex animals to some degree as consciousness is a function that evolves to necessarily be motivated by something to do its function successfully. To say there is a 'God' gene, is as problematic to me because it implies something more specific. It is better to think that we have a collective set of genes that inevitably lead to a tendency to have certain false or misleading beliefs that include religion.

I argued elsewhere how you can't argue that someone is 'born to be X' (like 'gay', for instance) when that X is of an incidental complexity. I compared this to someone asserting we are 'born' to prefer a likeness to the movie "Star Wars" over "Star Trek". (Any two movies would work that have similar but distinct forms that some like in style over another). Religion, when we speak generally, is actually a collection of specific types of beliefs too complex to assign, like different movies. We can talk of how religion has a common overall theme, like "movies" do for particular ones, but then religion, as a 'gene', would only be akin to a form of natural tendency to like movies (or stories, in general) with an admixture of claims about reality.

Most (or many?) archaeologists interpret things like burial, the way they are placed uniquely, and to the other things they are buried with as often signs of some 'religious' culture. But this would still occur for those who are atheists today. Even without religion, you can embrace celebrating in ways that are indistinguishable to rituals that appear odd. I would not, however, interpret rituals of religions, even in its most apparent extremes, as non-secular in origin, though. What distinguishes the origins of rituals, beliefs, and other behaviors of religion is to the fact that they often lack a distinct 'cause' of origin. Often, it is only much later that the rituals get so repeated in time that as everything evolves, they only too late recognize a need to rationalize its origins. But by then, the evolution through generations has lost the necessary link to the past that explains these with the same rationality people know of their present circumstances. So you have those who will device a religious story to explain it, and others who will just interpret those past people as crazy as those people granting some religious justification for the past.

But instead, why not default to assuming they have NO religion, just as we are not 'born' to BE knowledgeable of some genetic link to some particular 'god' by default? Religion has to be taught. Science is 'discovered' and is THE default reality to which we are born into. As such, science would always eventually discover the same exact things independently. But while religion should have certain general overall features inevitably as a function of natural evolution, it could NOT be particularly evolve to some specific belief. So religion CANNOT logically be an original function of evolution, only an ancillary one that derives directly FROM secular reasons. "Science" is derived from 'to see, or sense'. And without initially sensing, we couldn't even derive the complexity of creating any religion without that. So the 'scientific' mind would have to be the actual original cause of some latter religion.

What we witness in religious scriptures, archaeology, or other sources of the past, can, if inspected carefully, represent records of secular and scientific wisdom of the day that gets lost in translation. Much of it would have been originally passed on orally and the methods of memorizing such through time should inevitably get blurred by the very methods most effective for passing ANY information on: Entertainment!! Like how a cartoon such as "The Simpson's" has outlived most other shows, this form of entertainment that is most effective is the ones that are most 'cartooned' or caricatured. As such, much of what we get in scriptures passed down in religion as well as the rituals, get turned into literal interpretations of the media meant to entertain enough to get passed on. Imagine some future civilization looking at a Simpson's episode of today as their only surviving evidence of our times. They might first interpret that as evidence that we begun as literal high-contrasted, low color-resolution cartoons. Words would be misinterpreted and have a tendency to have evolved within the ranks of the religious authorities who passed them on. But even while the Simpson's are 'not real' to us today, that no one literally believes they are literal creatures, nor that the content of its stories are to be directly understood without reference to the context of the day, later interpreters too will accuse us of either having religion based on that or it is literally true ...yet ignore the possibility that we selfishly favored entertaining ourselves rather than focus on being literal in our everyday lives.

Science (or secular everyday life), not religion, has a more likely origin to what becomes religion. But we go through cycles politically to which one or the other becomes more prominent to the point of collapse for lacking enough of the other when reality requires it economically.

[ken]

I HAD to give God a definition before we could even begin here. So I did that. I certainly was NOT going to assert that 'I' exist, therefore the meaning of 'I' must exist, that being 'God'. I probably have, at the moment, over 100,000 words to explain before I get even close to the conclusion. Explaining each and everyone of those words in order to prove what I say is going to be easy. The hard part is just trying to get past people's beliefs and assumptions, once that is done, and if people seriously want to change their wrong ways, then the rest is plain simple, easy, and quick.

Let "X" stand for "All things"
Let "Y" stand for "All things and more"
"X" exists
Therefore "Y" exists.

I do not follow here:

How could there be a "Y", "All things and more"? There is NO more of ALL things.

Although it looks like you caught onto this later in some way, my point is to show that the argument by the kind of mistake I'm referring to is to think that one can label any term, like "God", as though it were a variable, when in context to cultures everywhere, this term is a constant. The 'constant' understanding of "God" is the DEFAULT and though many believe in different specific beliefs about 'him'(?), many interpret this essence a perfectly 'true' and particular entity in reality.

What is the 'constant' understanding of 'God'?

'My' constant understanding of 'God' is completely and very different from any other constant understanding of God that i have heard, or more correctly the 'constant' misinterpretation of God is very different. In fact what 'God' actually wants understood is sometimes completely misinterpreted, turned around, and then passed on in a completely opposite way of what is intended. Religious stories are full of these misinterpretations.

You can't use generic terms, like "I" or "the all", and label these "God", because you are just selectively transferring those 'variable' terms ('variable' because "I", for instance acts like a box to which you place your own name in place of it of which there are many).

It DOES appear that you may be thinking in terms of a "Gnostic" type of "God", like what has become the mystic branch of religion that do not always interpret "God" to be specific. East Indian Hinduism and Buddhism are extended evolution of these and are NOT always considered "religious" by some. But often the means of these are to interpret "God" as some conscious state of enlightenment, such as Nirvana, intended to entice us to interpret WHAT "God" is. And 'when' we discover it, we somewhat 'become' it for experiencing it. Is this some form of what you are thinking?

Yes, and no.

Because God is ALL things, physical and non-physical.

The transference con here is that we generally use "Universe" to be "X" while the religious person uses "God" to be "Y". But the error is the "...and more" part to which they also have their extended meaning of "God" to mean something like, "that caring creator of all things who will reward or punish you in the end if you don't believe or behave in some specific way". So it is intended to trick some into believing that if the SYMBOL stands for more than one definition, the SYMBOL when used in fact DOES mean all different definitions at once.

Ah ok, you answered my last question here already. If I was to quickly attempt what you did above, knowing that it would not be sound or valid, then I would say something like:

Let us call "God" "ALL things".
Let "W" stand for "ALL physical things".
Let "X" stand for "ALL space in between ALL physical things".
Let "Y" stand for "ALL thoughts and emotions".
Let "Z" stand for "Self-awareness conscious of It Self, the Mind".
If "W" "X" "Y" and "Z" exists, then
only that is "ALL things", (sometimes referred to as "God").
Therefore, "God" exists.

If 'I' am not yet Self-aware, then
"Z" does not exist.
Therefore, NOT "ALL things" exist.

"Z" exists.
Therefore, "ALL things" exist.

Contrary to what a LOT of people have heard, think and/or believe or disbelieve 'I', God, did not create the Universe, the way it is NOW, at any other point other than NOW. I am thee Creator creating "W" "X" and "Y" exactly how I want them to be right HERE and NOW.

I can't be certain of what you are saying. But let me reflectively rephrase how I think this may be to me:

You are asserting that "God" (as 'Z' here) is an essence that includes "W", "X", "Y".

No I am not asserting that 'God' as "Z" here. I am asserting 'God' is ALL things.

You default to assume we all agree to "W" and "X" (I'm not sure how you defaulted "X")

Because there has to be space in between and around all physical things, from sub-atomic particles up to planets, stars and galaxies, in order for them to exist. If "W" exist, then so must "X" exist, for the Universe to exist the way it does now.

but argue since "Y" is true, such that "I am conscious" means that "thoughts and emotions are true" (and the collection of all that have them as, "ALL"), this is sufficient to accept "Z" as true.

Although "Y" is true, for reason stated, I thought I made it clear that that is NOT sufficient to accept "Z" as true. 'I' may be conscious but that in of itself does not make me aware of self, i.e., self-conscious. For example if I am unable to answer the question who am 'I', then I am not a self-aware, self-conscious being. A person may be conscious but that does not mean they have gained nor reached consciousness. If a person does not have self-awareness, then they have not yet obtained consciousness.

Maybe this also could be put into that symbol logic form you use, or whatever it is called.

But you are then still interpreting this in the error I was pointing out, but just making unnecessarily more complex. I simply treated the "and more" to mean any extended meaning you apply to a definition.

Whereabouts and what is the error exactly? I knew I would write it in error, it is just that I can not see it, yet.

Also, where is the 'extended meaning that is applied to a definition' part. I, again, am unable to see my error.

For example, let's take two words that relate: "apartment" and "dwelling". If I said that "I live in an "apartment" and can prove it, by default extension of how this word is used, you could interpret me to be living in a larger 'dwelling' that includes other apartments. But we often use the word "apartment" to ALSO refer to the whole building, but since both are true by default, this is alright.

But if I am like a 'scientist' and want to discuss each place without respect to simply apartments, "dwelling" is more universal because this can include those living in houses or tents, etc. This would be neutral and lack implying some NARROW specific meaning.

Now, if you've only known any dwelling as necessarily being an "apartment", to you this word may be sufficient. But you can't appropriately use this word and expect the rest of the world to understand when or where you speak specifically about 'dwellings' in general or 'apartments in particular. You might be making some argument, for instance that "apartments", as with ALL "dwellings" to you, have the problem that the essence of the structure is not private enough. But this ignores that distinct houses exist should you think your use of "apartment" should be maintained when speaking of ALL dwellings.

This is what you also do with a term like "God" versus "Universe". If you beg that we accept "God" to mean what the rest of everyone uses the word, "Universe", this is just purposely picking a term based on some more limited meaning by how that word is traditionally and culturally used. The "extension" part is to how you treat "God" as one who only treats everyone as living in "apartments" by asking if everyone at least agrees to the meaning, "those that have some particular shelter to live in". You can't expect that since you personally define "God" to include properties that are most universal, that everyone should accept what you might have to say further down the road isn't intended to be transferable later on. That is, if you mean "Universe", but prefer labeling this "God", to those of us external to the religious interpretation of "God", find this as a rhetorical technique to be later applied as a con. Why not just use the neutral word, "Universe", since it IS more universal AND doesn't imply anything of its 'parts' whether that could contain a 'god' or not.

Because I was asked to define 'God', as concise as I could.

Note that this even occurs in language within science. I prefer the word, "Totality" over "Universe" since is more general to include the possibility of 'multiverses' AND to any possible things (like one's religious beliefs in places like 'Heaven and Hell') to be both MOST inclusive AND still not dismissing possible other things. It only opens the door for distraction.

I could quite easily use 'Totality' over God. It does not matter.

Also, I find it amazing that the use of the word 'Universe' which once meant ALL things can get changed so easily when something is apparently maybe true. Somehow the word 'multiverse' creeps into the dialogue and so we want to change the meaning of the Universe. If 'Universe' means All things, then if any other "verse", one or multi of them, start appearing, then that does not mean there are "other" Universes, that just means they all fit in with the One and only Universe. We have just gained a bigger or wider view of the Universe, there is no need to change the 'Universe's' definition just to suit new findings.

The term, "God", has too much baggage. We can't use this and why it is best that you avoid it. But you could try to find a more inclusive term, like I use "totality" if you want to focus on something more specifically linked to those things that religion involves.

'Totality' is fine.

Okay now let us change "God" to Totality, which still means "ALL things", which is still the exact same thing in reality, anyway.

Let 'A' stand for 'Totality.

Let "V" stand for 'The Mind'
Let "W" stand for 'ALL physical things'.
Let "X" stand for 'ALL space in between ALL physical things'.
Let "Y" stand for 'ALL thoughts and emotions'.
Let "Z" stand for 'Self-awareness, i.e., a being conscious of It Self'.

If, and only if, "V", "W", "X", "Y", and "Z" exist, then and only then,
'A' exists.

"V", "W", "X", "Y", and "Z" exist
Therefore, 'A' exists.

Is this a bit closer to being sound and/or valid? Or still long way to go?

[ken]

I can not dispute the last sentence. Do not assume (and believe) is what I have been telling you not to do, from the onset for the reasons I have given.

Are you playing with me here?

i have no clue what you are talking about. Just say it.

You wrote:
"Everything I believe is assumed to be true by me with the proviso that I might be proved false and need to change my views or plans accordingly."

Are you just saying that statement sarcastically as a joke?

The ridiculous of the statement speaks for itself.

If everything you believe, which is assumed to be true by you, might actually be false, then WHY would you believe (in) it?

Do you really believe what you are saying in the first sentence in this last quote, do you realize what you are actually saying?

I have no idea what you are talking about.

You wrote:
"Everything I believe is assumed to be true by me with the proviso that I might be proved false and need to change my views or plans accordingly."

The irony and contradiction in this statement is startling.

Why not just stay and remain open?

The funny thing about the brain is because it is so amazing it can even fool its own self. Self-talk is more powerful than people fully realize yet. EVERY word, EVERY syllable, even EVERY letter we say to our selves has an impact on us.

If you say so. What has this got to do with anything?

Ahhh, I do not know.... Maybe just about everything.

Absolutely everything is relative to the observer.
What we say to ourselves, changes 'us', i.e., the observer.
How we change effects what is then seen, and understood.
So, what this has got to do with anything is it would be best to take notice of every single word we say and use because this will affect us in a certain way, negatively or positively or anywhere in between.

If, and when, a person says "I believe..." then what they are really saying is that they believe (in) what they are about to say as being true. So, instantly that person (the brain) has just closed them self (its self) off from being able to see and learn more.

If a person, however, changed them self from saying "I believe...(things to be a certain way) " to "I view... (things in a certain way)", then they remain more open to see and learn more.

You do realize, right, that 'you' actually just said one quote back, "Everything I believe is assumed to be true by me..." These are your words about 'you'. You just proved what I have been saying all along AND what you thought I was assuming. Your own statement proves what I already knew.

What did you know? Just say it. Don't talk in circles. I don't think either one of us has the time.

I say that, IF A PERSON BELIEVES SOMETHING, THEN THEY ARE NOT OPEN TO LEARNING.

The reason WHY I am allegedly "assuming" that you take everyone of your beliefs to be true IS because every person takes everyone of their beliefs to be true. Every person is made up of the same things as 'you'. I know 'you' better than you know 'you'. I did not have to assume anything, this IS an already known 'fact', to Me.

Sorry. Then you have not read what I wrote. I said, I assume things to be true WITH THE PROVISO THAT THEY MIGHT TURN OUT TO BE FALSE AND I MIGHT HAVE TO CHANGE MY VIEWS AND MY PLANS ACCORDINGLY. The part in the capitals is the important part. Not the first part.

Do not be sorry. I purposely re-wrote it that way because I knew you would bring it back, and thus this would lead to my next response, which is:

Yes that part in capitals is the important part, a very important part, because it makes the first part of the statement absolutely ridiculous and non-nonsensical.

If you believe something, then that is already truth, to you.

No, it is not. It is assumed to be true WITH THE PROVISO THAT IT MIGHT TURN OUT TO BE FALSE AND I MIGHT HAVE TO CHANGE MY VIEWS AND PLANS ACCORDINGLY. biiiiiiigggg difference.

Why not stay open in the beginning?

Why not just continually look at things instead of believing (in) your views? Especially if you are going to have change them anyway.

Besides the very fact that you wanted me to prove what I said, which I have done through your own statement, and the fact that you said you would believe it if I can prove it, which is exactly what I have been saying is not the best thing to do, it STILL appears that you still have not comprehended what I have been trying to express and what has actually been going on here.

And I still don't understand what you are trying to say here. Why are you trying to explain it to me with my words? Just do it with yours. What are you trying to say?

I suggest to be able to learn MORE then this is better done by remaining open.

Could I say it any clearer.

I say this because if a person is holding onto and maintaining a belief, then they are not open, and thus unable to learn.

If 'you' have a "view", which you believe is assumed to be true, then WHY have that belief in the first place?

This question makes no sense to me. What are you asking?

I am asking what I asked. If you unable to understand that question, then I think that is MORE proof of what I have been saying.

By your responses you are unwittingly proving exactly what it is that is my second goal here, i.e., to show and prove how the Mind and the brain work. Especially how the brain is able to completely block a person from learning and understanding MORE.

Can you see now that there is absolutely NO reason whatsoever for believing (in) something that might be able to be proved false anyway?

No. If a car is 100 meters away, I will assume that I can cross the street safely. That is a belief. I assume it to be true with the proviso that I might have to change my plans if I am wrong. I start crossing the street. Suddenly the car appears much closer. I realize I was wrong and either step back or sprint across to save my life. My original belief was proved false. I now have a new belief. A car needs to be 200 meters away if I want to cross the street.

LOL So, my point is just proven again with this response.

Why have and maintain the first belief in the first place if it could be false anyway?

Why not just remain open always while looking when crossing the street?

If you had done that instead of believing that you could have crossed the street in time, then you would not have been wrong, and thus you would not have nearly been run over by the car.

Quite simple, really.

Besides the fact that beliefs stop you from learning and understanding more they can even get you in hospital, or worse.

If something is NOT yet absolute Truth, then WHY oh WHY believe in it, yet?

Because you cannot live without making certain assumptions. Assumption is a synonym of belief unfortunately.

But this belief is absolutely false. I am here and I am living and I do not have beliefs and try not to make assumptions.

By the way how do new born babies live? They do not have beliefs nor do they make certain assumptions.

Oh yeah I can certainly cross the street without a belief nor making certain or any assumptions.

If something might be right or wrong, then because of the word might is involved, then that is a great indicator that that "view" would be better NOT to be believed in at all.

Not necessarily. When you cross the street, you have to make an assumption about your safety. It might be proved true later. But till then it is an assumption. You cannot get by without beliefs or assumptions which are synonyms.

I COULD wait till the cars passes and when there is no cars, then cross. I crossed the street without making any assumption at all. I arrived on the other side safe and sound also. Therefore, we can again live without having nor maintaining beliefs and assumptions.

WHY oh WHY 'believe', assumed to be true, if the Truth is that it might not even be true at all?

Because it just might be true.

LOL
LOL
LOL

Ah ok now i get it now. That sounds logical. I will believe, what is assumed to be true, BECAUSE although it just might be false it just might be true, also. This is good advice. Thank you for it. Do you think I should follow that advice?

The Truth that having and maintaining beliefs and assumptions leads to stupidity whilst disregarding ALL beliefs and assumptions leads to intelligence IS becoming more and more proved here, and thus also becoming more and more obvious to others here. The more beliefs and assumptions one has then the more stupid one becomes whilst the less beliefs and assumptions one has then the more intelligent one becomes, I think.

That is a belief of yours.

LOL
LOL
LOL
LOL
LOL

EVEN AFTER I use the words, "I think", in relation to my statement, you actually directly afterwards still wrote the words, "That is a belief of yours."

You are joking hey?

Do you really wonder I ask you if you are playing with me here?

Even after i have continuously expressed that I do not have beliefs, and expressed why so, you still have the audacity to tell me that is my belief.

The power of beliefs really are that strong in blinding people to Truth and also to reality.

sthitapragya's belief that we can not live without beliefs tells sthitapragya that even I have a belief in something, even after continuously saying that I do not have any, and worse still EVEN AFTER I just said "...., I think"

I am surprised how easy this would be to make sthitapragya to say the things that actually prove what I set out to prove here.

'I', The Mind, (sometimes referred to as God) exist eternally and KNOW ALL things.
'I' exist with-in ALL physical things and create (what is sometimes referred to as the Universe), the way It is NOW, through an evolving-reactionary and evolutionary-creating process, always.

The proof IS already HERE.

That is not proof unfortunately. Those are just statements.

Obviously the first two are just statements.

The proof is IN the third statement. If you are unable to SEE it, then I suggest the best thing to do would be to ask a clarifying question. Something like, WHERE is the proof and/or HOW do i find it? AGAIN, if you just believe or assume everything you say is true, then you can and will never become wiser.

No, see that is where you play a trick on me.

I am not playing any trick on you. I am just using you to prove what I set out to prove. That is beliefs and assumptions stop a person from seeing anew.

Your theory is important to you. Not to me. I don't care about it. You want to prove it to be true. I don't. i am doing just fine without it. So I have no reason to look for a proof. I would wait for you to provide it because since it is your theory, you need to prove it. It is not my burden to look for proof. It is yours to provide it. Why should I ask a clarifying question? If you have proof, just damn well give it.

Prove what exactly? You do not even know what I am doing, let alone have any idea what my "theory" is about at all.

There is no proof of the mind existing eternally independently of the brain. You just make an assumption that it is so.

You just make an assumption that it is not so. You also just make an assumption that I just make an assumption that it is so.

How do you know that I do not KNOW that the Mind exists eternally, already, and so I do not need to make an assumption about this?

Instead of making assumptions first and instead asked clarifying questions first, then I could provide answers for clarity. But if you believe otherwise, then there is absolutely no thing that any thing could do to show you. Even evidence and proof can not override a person's belief.

There is no need to ask clarifying question. You just should provide the proof of your statements. You are not important to me. Your theory is not important to me. It is important for you to make me approve of it. So why should I bother with finding the proof. Just give it to me if you have it. All of it.

Another wrong assumption here. Your approval is of no importance. What is important is you showing me where and why I am wrong.

Also you might refer to 'I' the Mind as God. A lot of people do not. I for one also do not.

One person referred the fact that the earth went around the sun. A lot of people did not. You, for one, also probably would not have, also.

That is not important. The person who proved that the earth goes around the sun PROVED IT WITH EVIDENCE. You should do the same with your theory if you want to be taken seriously.

BUT how long did it take for some people to take notice and actually see the evidence that was being provided about earth and sun?

Do not worry I found that answer, sort of, "galileo was tried by the Inquisition in Rome, ordered to recant, and forced to spend the last eight years of his life under house arrest." And, that was with EVIDENCE.

Therefore, even when PROVED WITH EVIDENCE some people will just not see it and will even try lots of thing to not even look at the EVIDENCE. As I have been showing and proving throughout My discussions with you some people are just to blind to see. The reason some people are to blind to see is because of the beliefs and assumptions that they already have and continue to hold and not let go.

There is also no proof that the Mind knows all things.

For you, yet, maybe not. But that in of itself does NOT mean that there is no proof, yet.

Well,give me the proof. Where is it?

Do you want to define 'Mind' first? Or,

Do you believe there is no such thing as Mind?

That is again an assumption for which no evidence has been given by you.

You said previously, "A hypothesis is something that is in the development stage. It has not been proven. A hypothesis can never ever ever be challenged."

What you are calling "an assumption" here I might start calling 'a hypothesis'. I am not sure how long the development stage should be for 'My' theory/hypothesis to get to final proof stage so that every person can see and understand it, but I am looking in about the order of somewhere between January 5, 2020 and March 14, 2027. I have yet to make the exact date known.

Well then we will discuss after march 14 2027 when you come out with the proof. Till then it is pointless, isn't it?

But it best you remember how long it takes some people to stop believing (in) things, for example is the earth flat or not flat?

There is no proof that 'I' exists within all physical things. There is no proof that it is the 'I' which creates the universe the way it is now. It is your hypothesis for which you have not given any proof.

I have already given proof. Maybe you missed it. Everything HERE and NOW IS proof.

No it is not. I see no 'I' in a piece of rock. You need to show me the 'I' in the rock.

How do you think the rock got HERE, NOW?

Of course I would not expect you to fully understand this yet, but you will have to wait and SEE. AND, how long you have to wait will depend on how open you.

Now this is what I was waiting for. This is what all theists do.

Who is supposedly a theist?

"you will not fully understand yet" is their escape. You are basically saying that I don't have your intelligence. You are smarter. You can see things better. I am a fool. I have no concepts. I have no understanding. This is typical of all theists. It is the excuse you give when you cannot give proof. Degrade the other person. Put them down. There is nothing else left to do. You wont understand. Classic.

I am not sure what you are going on about here.

ALL I said was, "I would not expect you to fully understand this yet,...", In case you have forgotten or did not read it i said previously, "I am not sure how long the development stage should be for 'My' theory/hypothesis to get to final proof stage so that every person can see and understand it, but I am looking in about the order of somewhere between January 5, 2020 and March 14, 2027."

So, how would I expect you to fully understand this yet if I do not even expect to have it written down to an understandable stage until at least another four years?

Why all the ranting about theists and such?

Oh maybe that comes from some already held belief that you want to keep a hold on and maintain?

Some people are already able to SEE, others are NOT. Maybe you are one of those that it may take till the end days.

See? What you are saying is, I am better than you.I can see. You cannot. I am special. You are not.

Why make an assumption that is completely UNTRUE?

This is what your argument boils down to.

My argument is: if you hold onto and maintain a belief, then you are unable to learn amore and anew things. For example if you believe god exists, then you are not open at all to that possibly being untrue, similarly, if you believe god does not exist, then you are not open at all to that possible be untrue. If you believe something, then you are not even open to otherwise proof and evidence. Therefore, if you believe (in) something, then you are NOT open to learning more and/or anew.

You are the same as all the others with beliefs. You have beliefs which you are certain are true. You have no proof for them. So you will point to the lower intelligence of others as the reason that they cannot 'see'.

You are confusing us now. Before your advice was to have beliefs and now it appears you are saying it is not a good idea to have beliefs. correct me i am wrong, but what is it you are now saying?

You really are so blinded, which I thank you so much for providing ALL the PROOF and EVIDENCE I need in order to prove what I have been arguing along. Although, my argument did not need proving because the argument stands for itself, your help here is appreciated anyway.

You are exactly what you tried to put down at the beginning. You have very firm and dogmatic beliefs for which you have no proof. You claim you have no beliefs. Unfortunately, my friend, you are exactly like anyone else who believes in an elephant headed God.

And, there my friends is the cause, i.e., the blinding belief, which is now blatantly obvious to everyone.

The belief sthitapragya maintains that is blinding to sthitapragya to now being able to see anything, is also blocking and turning around in a completely wrong direction and moving even further away from Truth.

We can ALL see your belief, but what are you proposing are my supposed very firm and dogmatic beliefs here, for which I also supposedly have no proof?

[sthitapragya]

You wrote:
"Everything I believe is assumed to be true by me with the proviso that I might be proved false and need to change my views or plans accordingly."

Are you just saying that statement sarcastically as a joke?

The ridiculous of the statement speaks for itself.

If everything you believe, which is assumed to be true by you, might actually be false, then WHY would you believe (in) it?

Because, no one can live without making assumptions. Belief is an acceptance that something exists or is true, especially one without proof. And that is how you start something. You can keep in mind that you might be wrong, but you have to assume it is true without proof. You eat food every day. You assume without proof that the food is not contaminated or will give you food poisoning. If you get food poisoning, you realize your belief was wrong. You turn the tap on at your home with the belief without proof that water will come out. If it doesn't you will be proved wrong. You know that there is a possibility that there might be no water. Yet, you will be surprised when you turn the tap on and find no water.
So don't say you have no beliefs. You are wrong. Everyone has beliefs. You believe without proof that your car will start when you turn the ignition in the morning. You do this without proof. You expect the car to take you to your office.

If you had no beliefs, you would never be surprised. If you are surprised, it is because what you believed has been proved wrong.

You wrote:
"Everything I believe is assumed to be true by me with the proviso that I might be proved false and need to change my views or plans accordingly."

The irony and contradiction in this statement is startling.

Why not just stay and remain open?

Refer above. Everything that surprises you is startling. You BELIEVED I would not be stupid enough to make that statement without proof. You BELIEVED that I was smarter than that. You were wrong. You did not make any provision for your wrong BELIEF. That startled you. Now YOU WILL HAVE TO CHANGE YOUR PLANS ACCORDINGLY.

I say that, IF A PERSON BELIEVES SOMETHING, THEN THEY ARE NOT OPEN TO LEARNING.

I say if a person says that he does not believe anything, he is not only not open to learning, he does not know the basics.

Do not be sorry. I purposely re-wrote it that way because I knew you would bring it back, and thus this would lead to my next response, which is:

Yes that part in capitals is the important part, a very important part, because it makes the first part of the statement absolutely ridiculous and non-nonsensical.

Refer above.

If you believe something, then that is already truth, to you.

No, it is not. It is assumed to be true WITH THE PROVISO THAT IT MIGHT TURN OUT TO BE FALSE AND I MIGHT HAVE TO CHANGE MY VIEWS AND PLANS ACCORDINGLY. biiiiiiigggg difference.

Why not stay open in the beginning?

Why not just continually look at things instead of believing (in) your views? Especially if you are going to have change them anyway.

Because you cannot stay open in the beginning. You have to assume something. To assume is to believe without proof. You start with "let A=2." That is an assumption. Then you prove how A is equal to 2. Then that becomes the truth, with the proviso that if you cannot prove it, you might turn out to be false and might have to change your plans accordingly. Get it?

I suggest to be able to learn MORE then this is better done by remaining open.

Could I say it any clearer.

I say this because if a person is holding onto and maintaining a belief, then they are not open, and thus unable to learn.

There is a difference between starting with a belief and continuing to believe it in the face of evidence to the contrary. But you cannot start without beliefs. It is impossible.

Can you see now that there is absolutely NO reason whatsoever for believing (in) something that might be able to be proved false anyway?

No. If a car is 100 meters away, I will assume that I can cross the street safely. That is a belief. I assume it to be true with the proviso that I might have to change my plans if I am wrong. I start crossing the street. Suddenly the car appears much closer. I realize I was wrong and either step back or sprint across to save my life. My original belief was proved false. I now have a new belief. A car needs to be 200 meters away if I want to cross the street.

LOL So, my point is just proven again with this response.

Why have and maintain the first belief in the first place if it could be false anyway?

Why not just remain open always while looking when crossing the street?

If you had done that instead of believing that you could have crossed the street in time, then you would not have been wrong, and thus you would not have nearly been run over by the car.

Quite simple, really.

Besides the fact that beliefs stop you from learning and understanding more they can even get you in hospital, or worse.

When you get to a cross road which has no lights, how do you get across? You assume that the car is a safe distance away. You don't know exactly how far away it is. you do not know what speed you walk at. You don't do math in your head and conclude that you need to walk at 0.25 m/sec because the car is 40m away and travelling at 60km/hr and the distance you need to cover is 8.3m. You just take a calculated risk and you walk from past experience. You don't know if the car is going to speed up suddenly. You BELIEVE that the car will not. You BELIEVE that you will not trip along the way and fall. You BELIEVE that the driver is not drunk or a psychopath who will speed up just to run you over. And you walk.

If you think that any of that happens very rarely or is not a good example, it just shows that you believe very surely that such people are few and the chances of it happening are few without any proof. You believe. I believe. EVERYONE believes. You just don't accept it.

But this belief is absolutely false. I am here and I am living and I do not have beliefs and try not to make assumptions.

By the way how do new born babies live? They do not have beliefs nor do they make certain assumptions.

Oh yeah I can certainly cross the street without a belief nor making certain or any assumptions.

Refer above.

I COULD wait till the cars passes and when there is no cars, then cross. I crossed the street without making any assumption at all. I arrived on the other side safe and sound also. Therefore, we can again live without having nor maintaining beliefs and assumptions.

Why do you believe that a meteor won't hit you in the head? Or a man committing suicide won't fall on you? It happens. Why do you believe that the man crossing the street from the other end won't kill you? How do you know he is not a killer? Do you have any proof? You don't. You BELIEVE that statistically it is unlikely that he is a killer, or unlikely that a meteor will hit you in the head. But these are not proofs. These are risks you take knowing that there is a slight chance that it could happen. But you BELIEVE it won't happen this time. You board a plane knowing that there is a chance it will crash, but you BELIEVE that it is unlikely. You have no proof that the plane won't crash.

You cannot get by without belief. Your life would come to a complete standstill if you did not believe.

The Truth that having and maintaining beliefs and assumptions leads to stupidity whilst disregarding ALL beliefs and assumptions leads to intelligence IS becoming more and more proved here, and thus also becoming more and more obvious to others here. The more beliefs and assumptions one has then the more stupid one becomes whilst the less beliefs and assumptions one has then the more intelligent one becomes, I think.

That is a belief of yours.

LOL
LOL
LOL
LOL
LOL

EVEN AFTER I use the words, "I think", in relation to my statement, you actually directly afterwards still wrote the words, "That is a belief of yours."

You are joking hey?

Do you really wonder I ask you if you are playing with me here?

Even after i have continuously expressed that I do not have beliefs, and expressed why so, you still have the audacity to tell me that is my belief.

The power of beliefs really are that strong in blinding people to Truth and also to reality.

Well, if it is not a belief of yours, instead of insulting me, give me evidence. Statistics. Data. A debate between the two of us does not prove anything. We are both nothings. We are not authorities. Where is the proof for your belief that more belief makes one less intelligent? I know Nobel laureates who believe in Gods. You are not a Nobel laureate. You are nothing. Are you saying you are smarter than a Nobel laureate?

sthitapragya's belief that we can not live without beliefs tells sthitapragya that even I have a belief in something, even after continuously saying that I do not have any, and worse still EVEN AFTER I just said "...., I think"

I am saying that you are ignorant if you say you can get by without beliefs. You would not be able to survive.

There is no proof of the mind existing eternally independently of the brain. You just make an assumption that it is so.

You just make an assumption that it is not so. You also just make an assumption that I just make an assumption that it is so.

How do you know that I do not KNOW that the Mind exists eternally, already, and so I do not need to make an assumption about this?

I know because you just say it and cannot prove it in any way. What you KNOW is a BELIEF which you say you do not have.

[quote="sthitapragya']

Instead of making assumptions first and instead asked clarifying questions first, then I could provide answers for clarity. But if you believe otherwise, then there is absolutely no thing that any thing could do to show you. Even evidence and proof can not override a person's belief.

There is no need to ask clarifying question. You just should provide the proof of your statements. You are not important to me. Your theory is not important to me. It is important for you to make me approve of it. So why should I bother with finding the proof. Just give it to me if you have it. All of it.

Another wrong assumption here. Your approval is of no importance. What is important is you showing me where and why I am wrong.[/quote]

This is where you turn into a theist type believer. A theist always says, " show me that God does not exist". God is a hypothesis. So is your theory. The person making the hypothesis has to prove he is right. The others cannot prove it wrong. It is impossible to prove a hypothesis wrong. That is why it is a hypothesis. You really need to learn the basics. Your sense of your knowledge far exceeds the reality.

Do not worry I found that answer, sort of, "galileo was tried by the Inquisition in Rome, ordered to recant, and forced to spend the last eight years of his life under house arrest." And, that was with EVIDENCE.

Therefore, even when PROVED WITH EVIDENCE some people will just not see it and will even try lots of thing to not even look at the EVIDENCE. As I have been showing and proving throughout My discussions with you some people are just to blind to see. The reason some people are to blind to see is because of the beliefs and assumptions that they already have and continue to hold and not let go.

Oh please. Do not compare yourself with Galileo. Just give the evidence. Do not BELIEVE that I will not look at the evidence. See? You do believe. You BELIEVE that I will not look at the evidence. You have no proof of this. Yet you BELIEVE it to be true. And based on that BELIEF you refuse to show me the evidence (which I BELIEVE you don't have anyway). You are not here to learn. You are just here to prove yourself right.

For you, yet, maybe not. But that in of itself does NOT mean that there is no proof, yet.

Well,give me the proof. Where is it?

Do you want to define 'Mind' first? Or,

Do you believe there is no such thing as Mind?

Why should I define anything? You have to prove it. Prove it. Define what mind is. Prove that it exists independent of the brain.

I have already given proof. Maybe you missed it. Everything HERE and NOW IS proof.

No it is not. I see no 'I' in a piece of rock. You need to show me the 'I' in the rock.

How do you think the rock got HERE, NOW?

That is a question. Not proof. BELIEVE that I am idiot who does not know anything. Answer every question yourself .Just prove it. BELIEVE that I don't know How the rock got HERE, NOW. BELIEVE that I do not know what the importance of the rock being HERE NOW has to do with the 'I' inside the rock. Just prove to me that there is an 'I' in the rock.

Of course I would not expect you to fully understand this yet, but you will have to wait and SEE. AND, how long you have to wait will depend on how open you.

Now this is what I was waiting for. This is what all theists do.

Who is supposedly a theist?

You. You just don't know it yet.

[sthitapragya]

How do you know that I do not KNOW that the Mind exists eternally, already, and so I do not need to make an assumption about this?

Most theists here KNOW that God exists and they do not need to make an assumption about this. That is belief. Or faith.

You KNOW that the mind exists and you do not need to make an assumption about it. That is belief. Or faith.

Neither of you two have any proof of it. You cannot give any proof of it. You just KNOW. Your hypothesis is a conclusion without any proof whatsoever except your claim that you KNOW.

Your thought process is closed to the idea that the mind might not exist. The theist's thought process is closed to the idea that God might not exist.

Both are believers with faith. Both are theists.

[Dontaskme]

How do you know that I do not KNOW that the Mind exists eternally, already, and so I do not need to make an assumption about this?

Most theists here KNOW that God exists and they do not need to make an assumption about this. That is belief. Or faith.

You KNOW that the mind exists and you do not need to make an assumption about it. That is belief. Or faith.

Neither of you two have any proof of it. You cannot give any proof of it. You just KNOW. Your hypothesis is a conclusion without any proof whatsoever except your claim that you KNOW.

Your thought process is closed to the idea that the mind might not exist. The theist's thought process is closed to the idea that God might not exist.

Both are believers with faith. Both are theists.

The YOU can never KNOW because it is the KNOWING

What this KNOWING is NO ONE knows.

There is No one to prove life... LIFE IS without doubt or error. LIFE cannot split itself in two to become knower of the known.

This immediate KNOWING is not some-thing to be known by someone. IT is the knowing that cannot be known.

Rest in this.

[ken]

How do you know that I do not KNOW that the Mind exists eternally, already, and so I do not need to make an assumption about this?

Most theists here KNOW that God exists and they do not need to make an assumption about this. That is belief. Or faith.

You KNOW that the mind exists and you do not need to make an assumption about it. That is belief. Or faith.

Neither of you two have any proof of it. You cannot give any proof of it. You just KNOW. Your hypothesis is a conclusion without any proof whatsoever except your claim that you KNOW.

Your thought process is closed to the idea that the mind might not exist. The theist's thought process is closed to the idea that God might not exist.

Both are believers with faith. Both are theists.

Who ever said I know the Mind exists?

[Dontaskme]

Your thought process is closed to the idea that the mind might not exist. The theist's thought process is closed to the idea that God might not exist.

Both are believers with faith. Both are theists.

Believing in thoughts will get one no where where they already are.

Hmm, what am I to gain from all this nonsense, hmm ..

[Dontaskme]

You KNOW that the mind exists and you do not need to make an assumption about it. That is belief. Or faith.

"Nothing ever happened,
this is the ultimate truth."

"Ultimately, nothing moves."

Log on to the inner-net and be kind to your mind (or not).

Blah Blah Blah!!

Moo!!

Woof!!

An omnipotent, omnipresent, omnibenevolent God created the entire universe just so a hairless ape could strut itself on centre stage.

Ain't that something?

[sthitapragya]

How do you know that I do not KNOW that the Mind exists eternally, already, and so I do not need to make an assumption about this?

Most theists here KNOW that God exists and they do not need to make an assumption about this. That is belief. Or faith.

You KNOW that the mind exists and you do not need to make an assumption about it. That is belief. Or faith.

Neither of you two have any proof of it. You cannot give any proof of it. You just KNOW. Your hypothesis is a conclusion without any proof whatsoever except your claim that you KNOW.

Your thought process is closed to the idea that the mind might not exist. The theist's thought process is closed to the idea that God might not exist.

Both are believers with faith. Both are theists.

Who ever said I know the Mind exists?

How do you know that I do not KNOW that the Mind exists eternally, already, and so I do not need to make an assumption about this?

The 'I' IS God, i.e., the 'I' in the question who am 'I'.

Ken did.

[sthitapragya]

How do you know that I do not KNOW that the Mind exists eternally, already, and so I do not need to make an assumption about this?

Most theists here KNOW that God exists and they do not need to make an assumption about this. That is belief. Or faith.

You KNOW that the mind exists and you do not need to make an assumption about it. That is belief. Or faith.

Neither of you two have any proof of it. You cannot give any proof of it. You just KNOW. Your hypothesis is a conclusion without any proof whatsoever except your claim that you KNOW.

Your thought process is closed to the idea that the mind might not exist. The theist's thought process is closed to the idea that God might not exist.

Both are believers with faith. Both are theists.

The YOU can never KNOW because it is the KNOWING

What this KNOWING is NO ONE knows.

There is No one to prove life... LIFE IS without doubt or error. LIFE cannot split itself in two to become knower of the known.

This immediate KNOWING is not some-thing to be known by someone. IT is the knowing that cannot be known.

Rest in this.

Take your bullshit somewhere else. No one here is interested.